SOUNDS LIKE FACEBOOK GROUPS ARE JUST DRUNK TANKS FOR DOUCHES, BUT OK

  Facebook asked me if I wanted to join a group called "Sounds like the left hates Jews, but ok." 

  Let us attempt to "unpack" my reaction to this. 

  My first and foremost thought is this-- I hate, hate, hate the "but ok." I have zero tolerance for passive-aggressive language, and we even have a rule in our home banning the use of the word "whatever." I am disgusted by the proliferation of language idioms designed to inoculate the speaker against criticism in the wake of some douchery. I say, if you're going to criticize, just own it. If you're willing to risk being called a douche, then I know you stand by whatever you're saying. (Yes, I know I just used the word "whatever." Please don't slow my roll.) 

  So, I object to the annoying language regardless of my feelings toward the group itself. 

  I posted on Facebook, mentioning this group. Ha ha. Case closed. But then-- it kept bugging me. 

  I searched to see if there were other Facebook groups with similar names-- the "sounds like the left is yadda yadda but ok." There are. I got tired of looking at these groups after I read ten or twelve group names like that. 

  Then I thought-- say, aren't you the guy who's always preaching about the hypocrisy of the left, even though you self-identify as left wing? Guilty. So I did a similar search for left wing groups with names like that. Bingo. There are tons of them. 

  In multiple cases, there are several different groups with the exact same annoying name. 

  So, I did what any red-blooded American would do in a situation like this. I joined all of the groups. 

  By which, I mean that I tried to join them. I've never been rebuffed in my attempts to join Facebook groups in the past, but maybe hyperpolitical groups are more wary than the groups dedicated to Remembering Rodney Allen Rippy, or Bea Arthur Appreciation Society, etc. We shall see. 

  Incidentally, in case anyone's wondering, I have no intention of trolling. I don't care for trolling, even though some friends of mine do it. They do it a lot, as far as I can tell. I'm often reading posts where people express outrage after being banned from posting hostile comments on someone else's page. I saw one where a Facebook friend of mine was banned for referring to someone as a "nincompoop." 

  Now, I hope my friends who do this will forgive me for saying this. And as I type that, I realize it's skating close to the "but ok" kind of construction, so I'll try to amend it. How about, "I know you're doing it with good intentions, because that's you in a nutshell, but I'm trying to gently suggest that perhaps the outcome won't help your cause and may actually hinder it"? Can a well-intentioned troll read a statement like that, with its obvious weaseliness, and continue feeling positive about ol' Karl Straub? I sure hope so. (I hope Donald Trump Jr. will make himself available to helpfully explain to haters what I mean by the word "hope.") 

  No, there's no trolling in my future. I'm just gathering information. Trolling group threads would seem to be particularly dubious, like a gay man going to a homophobe gathering and sashaying up to some homophobe and saying, "Say, M'sieur Homophobe, how do you feel about a sodomite eating some of your Sun Chips?" 

  Would homophobes ever buy Sun Chips? Maybe not. They would probably assume that Sun Chips are the chips that Social Justice Warriors snack on. Which chip would be the most homophobic? Not Ruffles, I'm guessing. Lay's, probably best to stay away from those too. Pringles-- sounds pretty gay. "Granny Goose?" Speaks for itself. The snack aisle must feel like a damn homosexual minefield, if you're a homophobe, and it must be particularly irksome for them to be assaulted (ass-salted, get it?) in a place that always felt like a safe space before. 

      TRIGGER WARNING-- MY WRITING IS  LESS AMUSING FROM THIS POINT

(UPDATE: I've been welcomed into a whole bunch of these groups. Occasionally, I was asked to answer a few questions first to demonstrate that the group and I would be a good fit. I answered honestly, and sometimes qualified my statements because I really didn't know what answers they wanted. But even these qualifications were an honest representation of what I think. I did not, and do not, want to mislead anyone by pretending to be someone I am not. Obviously it's a bit disingenuous of me to say that, because my intention is to study the groups rather than join in. Although I haven't kept any kind of detailed record of which questions I was asked and by whom, my impression is that I've mostly been accepted, on balance perhaps less so by some right wing groups who didn't like my answers. But I need to add, that is my impression and is not documented fact. It's also true that I was accepted immediately by some right wing groups.

Here's something that surprised me, and may surprise or disgust some readers. My initial thought was to gather info in order to mock, or at least question, these groups later. But I have to say, in general, my experience was not what I'd predicted. Even on some right wing groups, whose goal is to call out left wing overreach, I didn't disagree with everything I saw. And in several cases, I guessed wrong about the political or philosophical stance of the group. Also more than once, the preponderance of jargon and irony made it hard for me to even figure out what the stance was.
  The big surprise is that my hypothesis that I was entering a zone of crybabies and whiners was not correct. At least, not entirely. And in some cases, there was some of that, but a whole lot of something else too-- it's too early to tell whether my emotional response was the result of learning, or of Stockholm Syndrome. Maybe a little of both.

My upfront plan was to observe these groups without participating, and  then write about the experience and pitch the piece to the Post. I was planning to avoid discussing it here, but I've decided to discuss it here as the mood strikes me. This way I can claim later that I'm not a total weasel.)